Thread: Plans to send some asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda

Originally Posted by Troy

I've answered that before. The UK needs to open legal migration routes and processin centres in Northern Europe.

Tax talks about queue jumping, but there is no available queue to jump.

Yes there is, it is called resettlement.

Originally Posted by helge

Britain has lots of representations all over the world, where you can apply for a visa.

What would you do with illegal migrants ?


(haven't made my mind up on this,)

Yes they do but they are not processing them very quickly. It maybe okay for someone like me who is in a stable country and doesn't really need the wife to join me in a visit to the UK. However, for someone who is running from a war torn country or who wants to leave one due to economic hardships it's not so easy to just wait and wait and wait.

However, it is a problem for the whole of Europe and not just the UK so it needs to be addressed. It is not enough to simply accommodate refugees and 'economic migrants' (That's what they are being called but they are also running from poverty, hardship and/or government instability). As many have said the numbers will simply swell until the host countries can no longer cope and I guess some are reaching this critically point already.

Perhaps it would be better to fix the problem at source and try to stabilise the economies of the areas through investment. I don't think it is enough to simply provide aid, it is just used to line the pockets of the government officials. It requires a bit more imagination and thought, but I think Europe is ignoring the source of the problems and addressing these would end up being cheaper than trying to stop the steadily increasing numbers risking their lives for economic stability.

Originally Posted by Troy

Perhaps it would be better to fix the problem at source and try to stabilise the economies of the areas through investment

That is the logical solution

And who is going to manage these investments ?

Europeans ?

I can already hear the screams about NEO-COLONIALISM!


In the meantime; what do we do with the illegals who cross our closed borders ?

Amnesty or deportation...to...where ?

Originally Posted by helge

In the meantime; what do we do with the illegals who cross our closed borders ?

Amnesty or deportation...to...where ?

Tricky, I agree. However, I take issue with the UK grouping all under the umbrella of migrants. Refugees and Asylum seekers are a separate category and can never be classed as illegal immigrants IMO. They have certain rights and can choose where they wish to exercise their rights of status. It is not true that they have to seek such status in the closest safe country as many seem to think.

Processing individual cases takes time and in some countries migrants are able to work during this processing time. As far as I know in the UK they are not allow to work and are subject to detention until the processing is complete. For those that fail to obtain refugee or asylum seeker status and have arrived illegally then one has to presume the country they left is safe to return. If this is the case then I see no reason why they shouldn't be deported. Who covers the expense, originating or destination country, I don't know but would expect to be covered under international laws.

Originally Posted by helge

And who is going to manage these investments ?

Europeans ?

I can already hear the screams about NEO-COLONIALISM!

Yes, I could see that one coming...

Another tricky problem, perhaps it could be set up under a UN umbrella or similar international organisation.

Clearly the current policies are not working and simply closing the borders and hoping these migrants will go away is not a viable solution.

So, let's rethink the problem and try to fix it at source.

Originally Posted by helge

Any immigrant can join the category by saying one word: Asylum

correct, the law has become a servant of the criminal, as most seem to - supported by charities and lawyers - its a farce we cannot seem to extricate ourselves from and wont whilst the ECHJ are there to rule over us.

Originally Posted by Troy

Clearly the current policies are not working and simply closing the borders and hoping these migrants will go away is not a viable solution.

So, let's rethink the problem and try to fix it at source.

yes lets take time, decades in fact to roll this intractable problem around, make like Nero - its the European way.

Originally Posted by Bonecollector

Expedited 500/ 800 pound visas now taking 6-8 weeks when they should take 3-5 business days. Normal visas taking up to 6months. I'd give you guys a few guesses why this is but I think you won't need them. The home office are so busy with illegals, they do not have time to process regular legally applied for visas from British Citizens and their families.

Actually that's been the case since the Brexit transition period ended. Lots of excuses and no action. We had to go and get the wife's passport minus visa twice from the Consulate. A visa she is entitled to for free. Both times the passport hadn't even left the Consulate after more than 3 months.

Originally Posted by Bonecollector

The home office are so busy with illegals, they do not have time to process regular legally applied for visas from British Citizens and their families.

So..they have to man up or start working

Originally Posted by Troy

Both times the passport hadn't even left the Consulate after more than 3 months.

Funny isn't it, that when you go to a consulate in person it takes about 10 minutes.

Next !

Well, at least the Supreme Court agrees with my view...

Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful

The government's Rwanda asylum policy, which it says is needed to tackle small boats, is in disarray, after the UK's highest court ruled it is unlawful.

The Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeal ruling, which said the policy leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches. It means the policy cannot be implemented in its current form. Rishi Sunak said the government would work on a new treaty with Rwanda and said he was prepared to change UK laws.

The controversial plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and ban them from returning to the UK has been subject to legal challenges since it was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022. The government has already spent £140m on the scheme but flights were prevented from taking off in June last year after the Court of Appeal ruled the approach was unlawful due to a lack of human rights safeguards. Now that the UK's most senior court has agreed, the policy's chances of being realised without major revisions are effectively ended.

But Mr Sunak told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions that he was ready to finalise a formal treaty with Rwanda and would be "prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks" in a bid to revive the plan.

A treaty - which Downing Street has said it will publish in the "coming days" - would upgrade the agreement between the UK and Rwanda from its current status as a "memorandum of understanding", which the government believes would put the arrangement on a stronger legal footing.

The new text would provide the necessary reassurances the Supreme Court has asked for, the prime minister's official spokesman said.

Ministers have been forced to reconsider their flagship immigration policy after 10 claimants argued that ministers had ignored clear evidence that Rwanda's asylum system was unfair and arbitrary. The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of "non-refoulement" - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.

In a unanimous decision, the court's five justices agreed with the Court of Appeal that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.

The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country, but it leaves the Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it is not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK. The Supreme Court justices said there were "substantial grounds" to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent, by the Rwandan government, to places where they would be unsafe.

It said the Rwandan government had entered into the agreement in "good faith" but the evidence cast doubt on its "practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term", to fix "deficiencies" in its asylum system and see through "the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required".

A spokesman for the Rwandan government said the policy's legality was "ultimately a decision for the UK's judicial system", but added "we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country".

...

Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful - BBC News


Whilst I agree there is a problem, I do not agree that this was the way to tackle that problem.

SOE managed to parachute folk into France, if the border force cannot protect the border it is not fit for purpose